SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. — T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010028922007

Filing Date

25-Jan-2007

Registration No

T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007

Diary Number

2892/2007

Order Date

01-Sep-2011

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA

    Adv. ASHOK K. MAHAJAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 16-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 30-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 08-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 26-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 26-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 09-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 22-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 26-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 19-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 21-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 12-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 04-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 21-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 14-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 27-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 23-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 05-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 16-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 22-Oct-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 24-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 18-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 07-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 25-Jan-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: T.P.(Crl.) No. 000030/2007 On 01/09/2011, the Supreme Court heard Sanjeev Kumar Singla's transfer petition against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The Court found that the Registry had committed a serious procedural lapse by failing to comply with its February 9, 2007 order directing deposit of ₹65,000 in a fixed deposit account with UCO Bank. When the deposit came up for renewal in September 2007, the Registrar deviated from the judicial order without Court reference, citing Chief Justice guidelines instead. The Court held that while CJI guidelines must be followed, they cannot override specific judicial orders without Court approval, and warned such lapses should not be repeated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case